I didn't say it was worse or better. My point is: "cyberwar" can be responsible for painful and "real" physical damage in the physical world. In that regard it is in no way "better" than the "usual/conventionnal" physical wars.

> can be responsible for painful and "real" physical damage in the physical world

Well of course, that's the entire point! They are not trying to do entirely virtual actions à la Star Trek's A Taste of Armageddon.

However, you have to concede that at least so far the physical damage is far lower, and therefor unlike you I do regard it as better.

Imagine I could blow MasterCard and every single bit of data they possess up. Its consequences are worse than 15 nuclear bombs.

Really?

Lets say you did blow Mastercard up.

Worst case, the government prints money to pay off all the debts (a 'bailout' if you will). We've done this for far less than a cyber attack. There is some inflation, a lot of hand wringing about cyber security, and the world goes on. GDP might drop a bit, maybe it triggers a recession, but a year later we're back on our feet.

15 nuclear bombs could kill millions of people. Entire cities could be wiped out with 300+ years of history, architecture, irreplacable museum artifacts, etc. People in general would flee cities en mass. It would fundamentally shake the country and likely lead to the US retaliating in a nuclear war, or at least a large scale general war not seen since WW2. The US would probably roll a million man plus army across the middle east or north korea to destroy whatever country allowed the bombs to be built. That war would not be the (relatively) white gloved affair that are the current rules of engagement.

I understand hyperbole, but that statement is just false.